HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS ESTATE OFFICER BHIWANI HARYANA Vs. SAT PAL S/O. SHRI UTTAM CHAND COMMITTEE ROAD WARD NO. 10, TEHSIL BAWANI KHERA DISTRICT BHIWANI HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by HUDA, Bhiwani which was opposite party before the District Forum, against the order dated 22.5.2012 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ('State Commission' in short).

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent Sat Pal filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Bhiwani in respect of possession of the plot allotted to him, interest and compensation. It is not in dispute that he was allotted plot No.15-P in Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani by the opposite party vide letter of allotment bearing Memo No.6572 dated 4.9.1991. However, the possession of the said plot could not be given to the complainant by the OP due to the pendency of litigation before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, another alternative plot bearing No.1414-P in Sector-13, HUDA, Bhiwani was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter No.1479 dated 30.7.1999. Though the opposite party pleaded before the District Forum that the possession of the earlier plot allotted could not be given to the complainant due to the litigation before the Hon'ble High Court against the plot in question but the OP could not place any documentary evidence with regard to the litigation of the earlier plot allotted to the complainant. The District Forum accordingly gave the following relief to the complainant vide its order dated 19.6.2007:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Forum, the OP Board challenged the same by filing an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its impugned order slightly modified the order of the District Forum by setting aside the higher rate of interest @ 12% p.a. awarded by the District Forum in case of non-compliance of the order of the District Forum within two months. Rest of the order of the District Forum was upheld and thus the appeal of the OP Board was partly accepted.